Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Ive had this anoying sqeak for the past week or so only notice it when im going slow and theirs minimal road noise (under say 40km/h). Tonight decided to investigate it a bit more. Ive worked out that when I push down on the Passenger front guard to compress/move suspension it makes the sound.

I removed the wheel and sprayed some inox on the any moving parts i could see to see if somethings just super dry or whatever and then put the wheel back on and had another push and the f**kers still their. :blink:

If i was to remove the coilover and completely remove all the suspension components lube them up and re install will I loose any camber or toe/alignment settings?

Any ideas?

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/259315-anoying-sqeak-from-front-left/
Share on other sites

If i was to remove the coilover and completely remove all the suspension components lube them up and re install will I loose any camber or toe/alignment settings?

Any ideas?

Yeah, you'll need a re-alignment if you remove your coilovers.

I'd say it could be one of your bushes...camber, castor, or swaybar bushes.

I put this up in the stag section as well and their are two others that had the same problem.

For both of them they removed a bolt on the control arm pryed back the seal on the bush with a flat head screwdriver and sprayed some lube in each end and it shut the thing up.

Start uni late tomorrow so will give it a crack :P

haha no GF at the moment. But i do have a funny story...

Took a girl for a drive down to the bay a few weeks back to go for a walk around the place icecream and walk on the beach ect (early stages of getting in her pants ayy :P)

On the way down their on anzacs a black VE V8 commie of some sort pulled up next to us with 4 male occupants and the driver put down his window and said Ill race you for your missus. HAHA she WASNT impressed and put the window up almost immediately.

being used as a wager hahahah....

Best part was I was to busy laughing about it and completely missed the lights as the commie rocketed away.... haha

i think its a decoy from those commy drivers...

make you laugh so hard that you miss the lights and they can scamper away

lol

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...